Skipness - The gridlock in the SE airports system is unfortunate, and whilst we can debate the numerous factors which have contributed to the evolution of that situation, I think it is safe to conclude that MAN is not to blame! I wholeheartedly agree that LHR needs additional runway capacity, but for whatever reason it is not there and is not going to be there any time soon. So we are where we are and this is the framework we must plan around going forward.
Given this environment, I see no problem with MAN securing such business as it can. In reality, there is virtually no requirement for Londoners to travel north to commence their air travel so they are not inconvenienced in that respect. However, many residents of the North have for years had little choice but to make their journeys to long-haul destinations via LHR, and I have no problem with MAG and other agencies working with overseas carriers to reverse that trend.
Where I must strongly take issue with you concerns the implicit criticism of northern customers supporting overseas carriers operating from MAN rather than religiously patronising BA and its dreadful unreliable transfer hub. I have no objection to BA operating in whatever manner it chooses - it is a commercial business with tough choices to make and I respect that. If that means MAN is just a spoke for afew A319s daily to LHR so be it. But the key word there is CHOICE … BA make a strategic choice which best serves their business. Fine. But here is the bit which is NOT fine … the condemnation of northern travellers who in consequence make a choice to support those carriers which best serve their own travel needs. Their choice is valid too. They have a right to choose too. They do NOT owe LHR a living. And they certainly don't owe loyalty to BA, an airline which offers the bare minimum in serving them. BA and its apologists cannot have their cake and eat it too.
I remind you (once again) that Emirates and Etihad are both large employers in the NW. Etihad and its Abu Dhabi partners are also enormous investors in Greater Manchester specifically. The NW operations of these two carriers alone contribute significant taxes to the UK exchequer (who can then spend it all on Crossrail, London Olympics Villages etc. as they choose). Your objections to the political climate in Qatar have merit, BUT … if we choose to fly only with carriers domiciled in nations with saintly politicians I'm afraid we're all doomed to stay on the ground! Sociopathic megalomania and questionable moral judgment is a universal job-requirement for successful politicians.
MAN is fully justified in attracting whatever carriers it can and the NW public are right to support the services offered as a result. Their only obligation is to best serve their own travel needs. BA is most welcome to commit more resources up here (we don't "hate" them), but we all know they won't. Well, thats absolutely fine - its just business. But that means that we up here will continue flying with QTR, UAE, ETD, KLM, AFR, DLH, DAL, AAL, UAL and all the others, and BAW supporters have NO moral grounds to condemn us for that. We support UK jobs at Manchester Airport by so doing; we support businesses which prosper in the NW hinterland based on this connectivity. We support the UK tax revenue which arises in consequence of this economic activity. And we are proud to do so. Manchester workers pay their taxes into the same pot as London workers. Those who suggest that tolerating the LHR transfer experience is something we should all patriotically endure for the benefit of UK jobs are talking pure hogwash. Sorry.
And now, changing topic entirely. MANFOD - I share your concerns regarding potential retrenchment by carriers such as Monarch and Jet2. I agree that it would be nice to see RYR / EZY expansion filling the void. I suspect that RYR / EZY would like to take up the slack too, but aircraft availability limits expansion options in the short-term so we must be patient a while longer. In the case of Monarch in particular, we are facing not only the possibility of fewer based frames but also the impact of MAN having been home to many of their larger types in the past. A 'double whammy' in the short term, but better to take that pain now rather than see an airline not secure financial viability for the future. Better a leaner, fitter Monarch for the long term than a non-downsized financial black-hole Monarch till the money runs out. Good luck to all affected.